Freeway Removal in Detroit

[313WX]

Hermod is an interesting character. His scholarship of the streetcar era is impressive. He was there on the ground floor as a minor technician during the freeway boom. For these things, he should be heeded.

But he's also complicated. Worked for the government much of his life and hates "the gummint." Fondly recalls a soda and a sandwich at Cunningham's yet extols the virtues of sprawltopia. For these things, he deserves a good bit of mocking.

Either way, very much a product of his generation.

I think people have the right to change their perspective on things [[for whatever reason) without being mocked, yes?

[ABetterDetroit]

I think people have the right to change their perspective on things [[for whatever reason) without being mocked, yes?

absolutely

[mwilbert]

If I were emperor I would probably opt to convert I-94 to an at-grade parkway through the city and completely do away with the need for bridges and the associated maintenance costs. I would route I-94 up I-275 and over I-696 to join up with its current route towards Port Huron north of the city.

It would still be costly to convert I-94 to a parkway, although I imagine it would cost less than rebuilding the freeway. But if you did that, you would presumably have some capacity issues if you tried to route all of that I-94 traffic onto 696, even if you weren't concerned about the existing industrial users of the current I-94.

I'm sympathetic to idea of reducing the impact of the freeways in the city, but unlike the freeways south of I-75, I-94 is an integral part of the region's transportation infrastructure. I suspect getting rid of it would result in some serious problems.

[Junjie]

No, this is your bias showing. There are successful cities that are totally auto-oriented [[Houston is the current population and job growth leader in the U.S.; LA is the population and job growth leader in the U.S. over the last century) and failed cities that are heavily transit oriented [[Athens, Naples, anywhere in Russia outside of Moscow/St. Petersburg; hell even in the U.S. Baltimore, Philly and others are relatively transit oriented and relatively failed in a sense).

Do you even read the posts or do you just see words and then decide they must say what your preexisting bias wants them to say? I wrote that "Successful cities accept high congestion, across the board, because those cities are desirable precisely for being filled with things that aren't freeways and parking lots." Houston and LA are definitely both successful cities. I'll let you work out whether Houston and LA also have high congestion for yourself.

Texas, dominated by sprawltopias Houston and Dallas, is the growth king in the U.S. while Illinois, dominated by relatively transit-oriented Chicago, has the worst economy and worst population loss in the U.S.

If only I had ever argued that auto-dependency leads to economic collapse and transit-dependency leads to wealth and success.

There is no "further auto infrastructure" planned for Detroit. There hasn't been jack built in 40 years in Detroit. We're only talking maintenance/upgrading of existing infrastructure.

If $4 billion dollars of freeway expansion don't count as new auto infrastructure, I don't know what does.

City population has absolutely nothing to do with transit orientation. City population is a useless metric anyways. Metro population is key and neither DC nor Vancouver have a similar metro population.

Not sure what your point is here. Vancouver's metro is about 2.3 million, Detroit is about 4.2 million, DC is about 5.8 million. Cities both smaller and larger than Detroit show that different mixes of transportation seem to have a more salutary effect on the CBD.

DC, as the capitol of the most powerful country in global history, with 400,000 federal workers and contractors basically forced to take transit, and Vancouver, a half-Asian apartment city in a foreign country, where a shack costs a million bucks, have absolutely nothing to do with Detroit.

"Forced" - you did know that Federal workers receive $245 to pay for parking each month but only $130 per month to pay for transit, right? As to Vancouver, neither ethnicity nor real estate prices would seem to have much to do with what effect freeways have on city cores that I can see.

No, they don't need parking spots, to the same extent. Cars cost more, transit costs less, incomes are lower, housing costs are higher. Obviously Canada will be less auto oriented. Vancouver is extreme in all these aspects [[low salary, high housing price, expensive driving, cheap transit). Nothing Canadian cities like Calgary have higher transit orientation than almost all U.S. cities outside of NYC.

Right. Yes. But these are policy outcomes, not acts of God. My point was that if Vancouver had decided not to build cheap transit, to provide lots of parking, and to run freeways straight into downtown, its downtown would probably look somewhat more like Detroit's and somewhat less like it does. This is so basic and obvious I don't even know what we're arguing.

Nope, I never made such an argument. More nonsense.

Plenty of places can be compared to Detroit. Indy, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Kansas City. Let's talk about cities that have some remote connection to Detroit. All of these cities are auto oriented [[some even moreso than Detroit). None of these cities are tearing up auto infrastructure.

I certainly apologize if I was remembering someone else, and am happy to make those comparisons. What lessons would you draw for improving Detroit's transportation system going forward on the basis of those cities?

[BankruptcyGuy]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and I have some questions:

1. Does anyone here think that this is a serious possibility; that is, does anyone think that freeways here will be torn out and replaced with either some other type of road or no road at all? Even if not, it's an interesting intellectual question.

2. Are we talking about more than the 375 spur into downtown? Have we missed the fact that 94 through downtown services trips from Canada to Chicago? That 75 connects all the way from Sault Ste. Marie to Florida? I think the point at inception of the interstate system was that the existing set of roads [[Michigan Ave from Detroit to Chicago, for example) were insufficiently fast for Eisenhower's vision. There was an acknowledgement that the roads would be unpopular in local areas, but would serve the greater country. I would highly doub that the City of Detroit or even the State would have the authority to shut down an interstate highway. Perhaps I am missing the concept being considered.

3. Are we talking just about interstates, or are we including Telegraph, Ford Road, Woodward and other high[[er) speed roads? What precisely is the distinction?

4. Are we confusing correlation with causation? I think it's been demonstrated that there are plenty of growing cities and metropolitan areas with highways right through central areas. Atlanta, Houston and Dallas come to mind immediately, and they are some of the fastest growing cities and MSAs in the country.

Just some questions along the way. Thanks in advance.

[Hermod]

I wonder what effect the dismantling of I375/I75 from the river to Eight Mile would have on the continuing presence of GM in the Ren Cen?

[gameguy56]

I wonder what effect the dismantling of I375/I75 from the river to Eight Mile would have on the continuing presence of GM in the Ren Cen?

Good riddance to GM. The auto companies have caused so much heartache for the city. Just let them evaporate like they are already doing naturally. They have most of their workers up in Warren already anyway.

[Gpwrangler]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and I have some questions:

1. Does anyone here think that this is a serious possibility; that is, does anyone think that freeways here will be torn out and replaced with either some other type of road or no road at all? Even if not, it's an interesting intellectual question.

There is no way in hell we are going to "obsolete" freeways that are part of the interstate system. Cars are going to be the choice of the majority of commuters as long as the economy keeps rockin' . The automobile is nowhere near becoming obsolete. Someone floats this idea out once in awhile and we argue about it for seven or eight pages, and that's it.

[Gpwrangler]

Good riddance to GM. The auto companies have caused so much heartache for the city. Just let them evaporate like they are already doing naturally. They have most of their workers up in Warren already anyway.

17 million vehicles sold each year...hmmmm...doesn't sound like it's evaporating to me.

[gameguy56]

17 million vehicles sold each year...hmmmm...doesn't sound like it's evaporating to me.

There are fewer auto jobs here in the Detroit area now than there were in the 1980s [[someone correct but I've seen this statistic before). The auto industry is the past. Bring the tech downtown and let's bring Detroit into the 21st century. Being completely beholden to the big3 for the past half century hasn't done us any good.

[ghettopalmetto]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and I have some questions:

4. Are we confusing correlation with causation? I think it's been demonstrated that there are plenty of growing cities and metropolitan areas with highways right through central areas. Atlanta, Houston and Dallas come to mind immediately, and they are some of the fastest growing cities and MSAs in the country.

Careful here. When one talks about growth "in Atlanta", you're really talking about "Gwinnett County, Cobb County, Clayton County, Forsyth County and Cherokee County". The massive freeway system hasn't resulted in a boom of the very small and linear Downtown/Midtown corridor, but rather an explosion of sprawl into the hinterlands to the north [[sound familiar?).

Essentially, Georgia never met a developer or road contractor they didn't like. They're constantly pumping money into expansion of their clogged freeway system, which is what has made the relentless automobile-oriented expansion possible. But if that kind of soulless, traffic-choking sprawl is considered "successful", then please, let me live in a miserable failure of a city.

[mwilbert]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and I have some questions:

1. Does anyone here think that this is a serious possibility; that is, does anyone think that freeways here will be torn out and replaced with either some other type of road or no road at all? Even if not, it's an interesting intellectual question.

2. Are we talking about more than the 375 spur into downtown? Have we missed the fact that 94 through downtown services trips from Canada to Chicago? That 75 connects all the way from Sault Ste. Marie to Florida? I think the point at inception of the interstate system was that the existing set of roads [[Michigan Ave from Detroit to Chicago, for example) were insufficiently fast for Eisenhower's vision. There was an acknowledgement that the roads would be unpopular in local areas, but would serve the greater country. I would highly doub that the City of Detroit or even the State would have the authority to shut down an interstate highway. Perhaps I am missing the concept being considered.

3. Are we talking just about interstates, or are we including Telegraph, Ford Road, Woodward and other high[[er) speed roads? What precisely is the distinction?

4. Are we confusing correlation with causation? I think it's been demonstrated that there are plenty of growing cities and metropolitan areas with highways right through central areas. Atlanta, Houston and Dallas come to mind immediately, and they are some of the fastest growing cities and MSAs in the country.

Just some questions along the way. Thanks in advance.

Can't speak for anyone else, but here are my answers.

1) Only some very limited parts. As you say, most of the freeways are part of a larger system and can't just be eliminated without serious problems elsewhere in the system [[and in the city, for that matter).

2) I would think both I-375 and the portion of the Lodge south of I-75 could potentially be removed. I'm really not sure how much point Davison has either, but there isn't any pressing reason to get rid of it now, as there is no development pressure anywhere near it.

3) I think people might want to consider narrowing some of those roads, as has been done with, for example, Livernois. I know lots of people don't like the median because of the limitations on turns, but it does make the street nicer and easier to cross, and hasn't caused any real traffic problems I'm aware of. On the other hand, the wide roads are, in my view, really mostly a problem for pedestrians. So while the width of Woodward in Midtown could be a problem, I'm not sure anyone cares how wide Telegraph is. Similarly, I wouldn't see the point of removing I-275.

4) I do not think I am. I don't think highway construction prevents growth. But I think ghettopalmetto is correct in saying that the MSAs you mention are primarily growing in their sprawlier parts, assisted by the large amounts of highway construction. Construction which has made Atlanta into something truly horrible. I haven't been to Houston in 30 years, but I go to Dallas fairly often and it is pretty unpleasant.

I don't think southeastern Michigan would be growing faster with more highways, although I think there might be some growth [[and quality of life) benefit to better-maintained highways. I think Michigan and other states build and expand highways without proper planning for the expense of their future upkeep. There isn't much doubt that highways make urban spaces less attractive, but I don't expect urban growth to dominate overall growth in very many US metro areas anyway. In Detroit, where the urban core is such a small portion of the metro anyway, any effect would be unnoticeable in the overall numbers.

[Hermod]

There are fewer auto jobs here in the Detroit area now than there were in the 1980s [[someone correct but I've seen this statistic before). The auto industry is the past. Bring the tech downtown and let's bring Detroit into the 21st century. Being completely beholden to the big3 for the past half century hasn't done us any good.

Yes, they make more cars with fewer workers and also have built assembly plants in other states. To counter your last point, the automotive industry has created massive [[and broadly distributed) wealth in SE Michigan.

[mwilbert]

Good riddance to GM. The auto companies have caused so much heartache for the city. Just let them evaporate like they are already doing naturally. They have most of their workers up in Warren already anyway.

The auto companies are the main thing bringing outside revenue into the region, and by far the main private source. Wishing that they were not around is wishing for a total collapse of the metro economy. Perhaps someday there will be other industries in Detroit that bring in something close to what the auto industry does, but that day isn't today, or any day in the near future.

[Gpwrangler]

There are fewer auto jobs here in the Detroit area now than there were in the 1980s [[someone correct but I've seen this statistic before). The auto industry is the past. Bring the tech downtown and let's bring Detroit into the 21st century. Being completely beholden to the big3 for the past half century hasn't done us any good.

Obviously you don't know anything about the global auto industry, the technology that now supports it, or the people it now employs.

[iheartthed]

2. Are we talking about more than the 375 spur into downtown? Have we missed the fact that 94 through downtown services trips from Canada to Chicago? That 75 connects all the way from Sault Ste. Marie to Florida? I think the point at inception of the interstate system was that the existing set of roads [[Michigan Ave from Detroit to Chicago, for example) were insufficiently fast for Eisenhower's vision. There was an acknowledgement that the roads would be unpopular in local areas, but would serve the greater country. I would highly doub that the City of Detroit or even the State would have the authority to shut down an interstate highway. Perhaps I am missing the concept being considered.

Actually, Eisenhower did not intend for interstates to run through urban areas:

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way… [He] was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored.

http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/03/10/eisenhower-didnt-want-highways-through-cities/

[BankruptcyGuy]

Actually, Eisenhower did not intend for interstates to run through urban areas:

Thanks for linking that. Reading the letter indicates that Eisenhower did not intend that, but the system ended up that way [[to his dismay). I stand corrected.

[ABetterDetroit]

Good riddance to GM. The auto companies have caused so much heartache for the city. Just let them evaporate like they are already doing naturally. They have most of their workers up in Warren already anyway.

Building utopia through abandonment and "good riddance". Great plan there.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Careful here. When one talks about growth "in Atlanta", you're really talking about "Gwinnett County, Cobb County, Clayton County, Forsyth County and Cherokee County". The massive freeway system hasn't resulted in a boom of the very small and linear Downtown/Midtown corridor, but rather an explosion of sprawl into the hinterlands to the north [[sound familiar?).

Essentially, Georgia never met a developer or road contractor they didn't like. They're constantly pumping money into expansion of their clogged freeway system, which is what has made the relentless automobile-oriented expansion possible. But if that kind of soulless, traffic-choking sprawl is considered "successful", then please, let me live in a miserable failure of a city.

Fair enough point on Atlanta--I've been there many times, and it's as congested as any place I've ever been. But so are Chicago [[where I used to live) and DC [[where I just got back from), and they have successful transit systems. I just don't see that there is a causation here. Some cities are mass transit-oriented and stagnant, some are car-oriented and stagnant. There are examples of growth in both cases [[Houston went from 600K population in 1950 to 2.1MM today).

Further, I don't think there's any evidence that removing freeways would lead to increases in population. The horse is already out of the barn, so to speak.

[iheartthed]

Thanks for linking that. Reading the letter indicates that Eisenhower did not intend that, but the system ended up that way [[to his dismay). I stand corrected.

Yeah, but I don't think that the system ended up that way because it was better. It was just a play for "free" federal money by local governments and state highway authorities [[and probably some encouragement by the private companies who stood to benefit from it). I don't think freeways through a city like Detroit make any more sense now than it did back then.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Can't speak for anyone else, but here are my answers.

4) I do not think I am. I don't think highway construction prevents growth. But I think ghettopalmetto is correct in saying that the MSAs you mention are primarily growing in their sprawlier parts, assisted by the large amounts of highway construction. Construction which has made Atlanta into something truly horrible. I haven't been to Houston in 30 years, but I go to Dallas fairly often and it is pretty unpleasant.

I don't think southeastern Michigan would be growing faster with more highways, although I think there might be some growth [[and quality of life) benefit to better-maintained highways. I think Michigan and other states build and expand highways without proper planning for the expense of their future upkeep. There isn't much doubt that highways make urban spaces less attractive, but I don't expect urban growth to dominate overall growth in very many US metro areas anyway. In Detroit, where the urban core is such a small portion of the metro anyway, any effect would be unnoticeable in the overall numbers.

Scholars of statistics show that correlation between A and B can have three possible meanings:

A caused B
B caused A
Something else caused A and B

Was it that roads were expanded, and then people moved out, or people moved out, traffic became unbearable, and roads were expanded? Or did something else cause people to move out and someone to build roads at the same time?

On the point of maintenance, it is very rare for politicians to plan for future expenses of virtually anything. Pensions, Medicare, wars, you name it. Expenses [[and associated tax liabilities) are someone else's problem [[to them).

Speaking as just one person, I think highways help people like me enjoy downtown Detroit. I can get down to watch a Tigers game [[F U Bert Blyleven), go to dinner, take in a show, shop much more easily and conveniently with them.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Yeah, but I don't think that the system ended up that way because it was better. It was just a play for "free" federal money by local governments and state highway authorities [[and probably some encouragement by the private companies who stood to benefit from it). I don't think freeways through a city like Detroit make any more sense now than it did back then.

So is the question "was this smart planning in the 1950's"?

Interstates murdered business along main State Routes across the country [[Route 50, Route 66). I'm guessing that wasn't the intention either.

[iheartthed]

So is the question "was this smart planning in the 1950's"?

Interstates murdered business along main State Routes across the country [[Route 50, Route 66). I'm guessing that wasn't the intention either.

Well, there's a difference between "murdering" businesses for societal greater good, and murdering them for misguided ambitions. There is no question that the country is far better off for having the interstate highway system than not. And those small businesses made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good.

However, I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that American cities that were mutilated by the system are better off for having the system traverse the inner cities. In fact, the evidence is quite the opposite. No other economically advanced nation that built a robust highway system did to their cities what we did to ours, and for that reason no other economically advanced nation has the degree of urban decay we have in our country. We did not gain anything by sending the freeways through our urban cores that the Germans missed out on by not doing so.

[Hermod]

Well, there's a difference between "murdering" businesses for societal greater good, and murdering them for misguided ambitions. There is no question that the country is far better off for having the interstate highway system than not. And those small businesses made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good.

However, I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that American cities that were mutilated by the system are better off for having the system traverse the inner cities. In fact, the evidence is quite the opposite. No other economically advanced nation that built a robust highway system did to their cities what we did to ours, and for that reason no other economically advanced nation has the degree of urban decay we have in our country. We did not gain anything by sending the freeways through our urban cores that the Germans missed out on by not doing so.

Ypu, thse little motels that survived have had to become "no tell motels".

Eisenhower would have preferred to have I-75 run straight from the Ohio Turnpike up to the Mackinac Bridge without going near Detroit. The reason that I-75 runs over and jogs though Detroit is because the Detroit politicians pushed for it. Detroit had a scheme for city expressways which predated the interstate highway program by a number of years. Detroit wanted expressways. By integrating their urban expressway scheme into the interstate program, they got Uncle Sugar to pick up 90% of the cost. As I recall, the expressways within the city limits were paid for as follows:

USA-90%
State of Michigan- 7.5%
Wayne County - 1.25%
City of Detroit-1.25%

[MicrosoftFan]

Fixed it all

Attachment 26370


Some of existing I-75 and all of I-375 removed.
I-75 rerouted on to I-94 and I-96.
New 5 lane surface street to replace I-375, connects into I-75
New Surface streets
New Business 75 Loop, Warren to Woodward to Campus Martius to Fort
New Business 94 Loop, Michigan to Campus Martius to Monroe to Gratiot

How did you make this?